Garrison Johnson v. Cate et al
Filing
32
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Action be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim re 25 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/10/12. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections, If Any, Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GARRISON S. JOHNSON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING ACTION BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
14
Case No. 1:10-cv-01918-LJO-DLB PC
Defendants.
ECF No. 25
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
15
16
17
Findings and Recommendations
18
19
I.
Background
20
Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff’) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
21
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil
22
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his
23
complaint. ECF No. 1. On May 4, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and directed
24
service against Defendants Matthew Cate and Kelly Harrington. On July 18, 2011, Defendants filed
25
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On January 11, 2012, Defendants’ motion was
26
granted. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint. On February 6, 2012,
27
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 25. The amended complaint is before the
28
Court for screening.
1
1
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
2
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
3
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
4
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
5
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
6
7
is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
8
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
9
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
10
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
11
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual
12
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
13
II.
Summary of First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, California, where
14
15
the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants Matthew Cate, director
16
of CDCR, and Kelly Harrington, warden of KVSP.
17
Plaintiff alleges the following. Defendants Cate and Harrington instituted a policy or
18
practice of not allowing Plaintiff, an African American, to participate in the voting process of
19
Mexican and Caucasian prisoners to the inmate advisory council (“IAC”) as housing unit
20
representatives. Plaintiff alleges that on November 23, 2009,1 Plaintiff participated in the election of
21
an African American prisoner as an IAC representative for C5-housing unit. Only African American
22
inmates were allowed to vote for the African American prisoner IAC representative.
23
Defendants were aware that KVSP had a policy of racial segregation and discrimination of
24
voting for IAC housing unit representatives. Defendants were aware that KVSP inmates established
25
self-imposed politics which discouraged inmates from voting outside of their race for IAC
26
representatives, and that Defendants failed to correct these issues, subjecting Plaintiff to racial
27
discrimination.
28
1
Plaintiff’s amended complaint lists the date as “November 22, 229.” This appears to be error.
2
1
Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2
Plaintiff requests as relief compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, ordering CDCR
3
to cease its policy of allowing inmates’ self-imposed politics to discourage inmates from voting
4
outside of their racial groups.
5
III.
Analysis
6
The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike.
7
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). “Prisoners are protected
8
under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious discrimination
9
based on race.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (citation omitted).
10
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
11
Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with an intent or purpose to
12
discriminate against the plaintiff based upon his membership in a protected class. Thornton v. City
13
of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff must demonstrate that he was
14
intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated. Thornton, 425 F.3d at 1167.
15
Any race-based classification imposed by the government violates the Equal Protection
16
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, unless the government can show that the classification is
17
narrowly tailored and it furthers a compelling government interest. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S.
18
499, 505 (2005). To meet this standard, defendants must show that reasonable minds could not differ
19
regarding the necessity of the racial classification in response to the subject prison disturbance and is
20
the least restrictive alternative, i.e., is narrowly tailored to achieve legitimate prison goals.
21
Richardson v. Runnels, 594 F.3d 666, 671 (9th Cir. 2010).
22
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Cate and Harrington. Defendants violate
23
the Equal Protection Clause when they discriminate against prisoners based on his membership in a
24
protected class. However, based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it is prisoners who discourage other
25
prisoners from voting for IAC representatives of other races. Plaintiff fails to allege facts which
26
demonstrate that Defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against Plaintiff based
27
on his race. Plaintiff alleges only that Defendants failed to stop prisoners from imposing these
28
policies. Defendants are not the cause of the racial voting policies. See Johnson, 543 U.S. at 505
3
1
(equal protection applicable when racial classification imposed by government).
2
Plaintiff had previously been provided an opportunity to amend his complaint. The Court
3
finds that further leave to amend should not be granted.
4
IV.
5
6
7
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
8
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days
9
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections
10
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
11
Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within
12
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised
13
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
14
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).1
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
September 10, 2012
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
DEAC_Signature-END:
19
3b142a
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?